from the freak-out dept

We've talked in the past about the wonderful world of moral panics that typically show up anytime a new kind of entertainment and/or technology is introduced. Whether they revolve around Dungeons and Dragons, social media, now-accepted pagan holidays, or certain kinds of music, the hallmark of these moral whip-ups is that they rise suddenly with the introduction of the new whatever-we're-talking-about, reach a fever pitch, and then suddenly fall away once everyone realizes how stupid the whole panic thing was. That typically takes roughly a generation to cycle through, as the youth that enjoyed the horror of the new whatever-thing become adults and move on to demonizing something else. I guess it's something of a tradition, one whose history we've highlighted in the past.

Of course, the moral panic du jour for my lifetime has been video games, and that panic has been just as stupid and fact-deprived as the rest of them. If history is any indication, however, we should be entering the part of the cycle where the moral panic over video games starts to decline. As this somewhat comprehensive history of video game panics from Reason shows, adults have been at this for nearly half a century. It started with pinball arcades and, boy, does it offer some perspective on the current panics.

Video game arcades did not exist before the 1970s, but amusement arcades have been around for more than a century, giving people a place to play pinball and other coin-operated entertainments. They were tightly packed, anonymous environments filled with young people and working-class immigrants, a perfect recipe for middle-class anxieties. (There were even rumors of girls being kidnapped at arcades and sold into white slavery.) Throw in the fact that gambling was known to take place on the premises, and the venues' shady reputation was assured.

Look, which of us can honestly say we haven't been desperate for a few quarters and sold a couple of girls into white (?!!?) slavery (which I assume is somehow supposedly different than other kinds of slavery, but I don't want to know how). It should be noted that many cities, including New York, didn't lift the ban on pinball until the late seventies. From there, once video game arcades made their appearance in the eighties, the ground was already laid for how to freak out about them.

The article goes on to describe all the other game-related panics: Death Race supposedly teaching kids how to run over real people on highways in real life, Custer's Revenge and other crappy attempts to put nudity in games, the couch-potato claims that fell away once Dance Dance Revolution and the Wii made them untenable, Joe Lieberman (the man who was apparently less fit to be Vice President than Sarah Palin) being Joe Lieberman, how Doom was directly responsible for the Columbine massacre, and, of course, Grand Theft Auto, which brings this whole panicky nonsense full-circle.

The series, which started to appear in 1997 but came into its own with 2001's Grand Theft Auto III, was praised in the gaming community for its pioneering open-world environments, in which players roam freely and choose their own goals rather than following a linear, pre-set sequence of tasks. But pundits pilloried it for its morally shaky content: The gameplay could include not just car theft but murder, bank robbery, and—shades of Death Race—deliberately running down pedestrians.

And, with that, we're right back to games supposedly teaching roughly all the children to run over people in real life, despite the fact that that didn't happen the last time this nonsense was offered up as a prediction.

As always, there's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that we aren't out of the woods on the moral panic over games yet. The good news is that we probably will be soon. The bad news is that Jack Thompson is still making his noise about video games. The good news is that he was disbarred. The bad news is that the media still enjoys whipping up a panic amongst naive adults who will believe their squawks about the dangers of some of these games. The good news is that, every time they have in the past, it only resulted in higher sales for those games, which will only spur on the eventual decline of the panic. Then we can all move on to the next panic. It'll probably be, I don't know, sex robots or something.

from the good-move dept

As we've discussed plenty of times in the past, works created by the federal government here in the US are automatically in the public domain. There are some minor exceptions -- works created by others for the government can have copyright, and copyrights can be transferred to the US government. However, there's also one big exception, even if it's never really used: that public domain nature only applies to the US. Most other countries have concepts like crown copyright that allows government works to be covered by copyright -- and technically, works of the federal government that are public domain in the US can be considered covered by copyright elsewhere:

The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.

In practice, the US government has never really enforced that foreign copyright. However, with the release of the administration's new Open Data Action Plan, the federal government is finally using CC0 declaration to waive copyright globally when it comes to datasets from certain government agencies. Additionally, the report itself is using the same CC0 dedication, while correctly noting that such a thing isn't even needed (nor could it really be used) for the work within the US:

As a work of the United States Government, this document is in the public domain within the United States. Additionally, the United States Government waives copyright and related rights in this work worldwide through the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

This is a step in the right direction. Historically, we've seen how making US government data completely free has helped industries grow and innovate.

from the about-time dept

For all of our discussions about how the US government has responded idiotically to the Snowden revelations, the response in the UK has been much worse. Making newspapers destroy hard drives, detaining people at airports for "terroristic" acts of journalism and generally seeking to block any and all discussion goes a level beyond what's happened in the US. And it's become clear that, as weak as oversight of the intelligence community has been in the US, it's been even worse in the UK, where its own "watchdog" only has one full-time employee.

And, while there's been at least a somewhat healthy debate about the state of surveillance within the US Congress, it's been much more muted over in the UK. So it's encouraging to see a new report come from a group of UK Members of Parliament that issues a blistering condemnation of the current state of oversight of the UK intelligence community:

A highly critical report by the Commons home affairs select committee published on Friday calls for a radical reform of the current system of oversight of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, arguing that the current system is so ineffective it is undermining the credibility of the intelligence agencies and parliament itself.

The MPs say the current system was designed in a pre-internet age when a person's word was accepted without question. "It is designed to scrutinise the work of George Smiley, not the 21st-century reality of the security and intelligence services," said committee chairman, Keith Vaz. "The agencies are at the cutting edge of sophistication and are owed an equally refined system of democratic scrutiny. It is an embarrassing indictment of our system that some in the media felt compelled to publish leaked information to ensure that matters were heard in parliament."

Of course, the current head of the intellegence and security committee in Parliament, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, pretty much dismissed the entire report with a wave of the hand, calling it "old hat."

Still, the report is fairly damning for the intelligence community, and directly notes what a service Ed Snowden appears to have done in exposing just how out of control the intelligence community has become -- and what little real oversight the government has over it. While some MPs (from the Labour and Lib Dem parties) sought to congratulate the Guardian for "responsibly reporting" the Snowden leaks, others from the Tory party voted them down. Still, it's good to see members from two of the three major UK political parties admit that you can responsibly report on these things and that Snowden helped to open up a "wide and international public debate."

The report also contrasts how the Guardian has responded to Parliamentary inquiry with that of the intelligence community:

Their report says Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, responded to criticism of newspapers that decided to publish Snowden's disclosures, including the head of MI6's claim that it was "a gift to terrorists", by saying that the alternative would be that the next Snowden would just "dump the stuff on the internet".

The MPs say: "One of the reasons that Edward Snowden has cited for releasing the documents is that he believes the oversight of security and intelligence agencies is not effective. It is important to note that when we asked British civil servants – the national security adviser and the head of MI5 – to give evidence to us they refused. In contrast, Mr Rusbridger came before us and provided open and transparent evidence."

The report makes clear the intelligence chiefs should drop their boycott of wider parliamentary scrutiny. "Engagement with elected representatives is not, in itself, a danger to national security and to continue to insist so is hyperbole," it says.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Last year, the Cronut took New York (and then the world) by storm. It was at the forefront of a renewed craze for designer confections and, more specifically, so-called "food mashups". Though we haven't reached Nuts and Gum yet, the craze is far from finished:

The item we will vote on next week seeks input on the best way to accommodate this goal. We will specifically ask whether Title II or Section 706 of the Communications Act is the best way to address the matter of Internet openness.

That's a bit of a shift. All indications before were that, at this stage, the focus was entirely on Section 706, with Wheeler merely promising to hang onto Title II in his back pocket. Putting it up front and center, and asking for public comment on the use of Title II reclassification (which would make broadband providers subject to common carrier rules) is a big deal. Wheeler further stated that he's really committed to this based on his own earlier experiences. While many have (rightfully) pointed out that Wheeler is a former cable industry lobbyist, he notes that he's also been on the other side of networks with monopolistic powers:

As an entrepreneur who started companies that offered new programs and services to
cable companies, I was subject to being blocked from access to cable networks. It is an
experience that made me especially wary of the power of closed networks to innovate on their
own agenda to the detriment of small entrepreneurs.

To a very large extent, this experience has been the backbone of my long-time support for
the Open Internet. It is the openness of the Internet that makes it special. My job at the FCC is to
protect that openness, and the innovation and expression it allows to flourish.

Of course, some of his previous statements have suggested that he still doesn't understand the full nature of the problem (interconnection and the lack of competition). So it remains to be seen what really happens. However, it's encouraging to see that Wheeler seems to be progressively moving closer to making Title II a legitimate option.

Of course, as that gets closer and closer to the table, the insane freakout from broadband providers and their (very powerful) lobbyists will reach a fever pitch. This fight is far from over, but it's getting more interesting day by day.

from the educational-program dept

Despite no real evidence of effectiveness, various UK ISPs have now agreed to start sending out "educational" "alerts" to subscribers that copyright holders accuse of using their internet connection for unauthorized file sharing. This is a modification on the US "six strikes" system, in that these latest alerts are even more meaningless. Unlike the US's "voluntary" system, in which ISPs may take some limited punitive measures, the UK ISPs won't do that. They won't even tell users about the possibility of punitive measures. They'll basically just say "hey, someone spotted you doing something, and we think maybe you should knock it off."

The deal has been struck with the BPI, which represents the British music industry, and the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which covers film.

The bodies had originally suggested the letters should tell repeat infringers about possible punitive measures.

They also wanted access to a database of known illegal downloaders, opening the possibility of further legal action against individuals.
Continue reading the main story

However, following almost four years of debate between the two sides, the final draft of the Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (Vcap) contains neither of those key measures.

Of course, as the BBC article notes, the MPAA/BPI and others wanted much stricter measures, but were unable to get them. And that means this is nothing more than a foot in the door plan. It's easy to make a prediction: when copyright infringement doesn't magically stop, these groups will go running back to the ISPs (and to the UK government) whining about how more "needs to be done."

Within the leaked agreement, one important point: if this system does not have a big effect on piracy, then rights holders will call for the "rapid implementation" of the Digital Economy Act, and all the strict measures that come with it.

Steve Kuncewicz, an expert in online and internet law, agreed. He speculated that the deal "may be a Trojan horse exercise in gathering intelligence about how seriously downloaders take threats".

In other words, if it can be shown that asking nicely does not have a significant effect on curbing piracy, rights holders will for the first time have a seriously credible set of data with which to apply pressure for harder enforcement on those who simply do not want to pay for entertainment.

I would question the "seriously credible set of data." Showing that asking nicely doesn't stop infringement doesn't mean that suddenly pulling out the big ban hammer will actually stop infringement. At this point there's plenty of "seriously credible data" that tougher laws don't stop infringement (or, at least, if they do short term, it doesn't last very long). But, you know, to the big copyright lobbyists, greater enforcement is the only hammer they know. Actually providing consumers with what they want is a concept that they don't spend any time exploring.

The procedure, however, likely will take months, several experts said. That’s because it’s complex and time-consuming. Not only does the CIA have to review information that came from its archives, but other U.S. intelligence agencies as well as the Pentagon and the State Department have to evaluate material that they provided, they said.

Of course, as that report notes, plenty of people note that key parts can be declassified quickly -- but likely won't.

The CIA “could demonstrate good faith by releasing the least problematic portions of the text, like the introduction, conclusions and high-level findings. But they’re not doing that and that strikes me as at least bordering on bad faith,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “Why does the entire volume need to be held hostage to the most difficult piece of information?”

Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has urged the White House to wrest control of the declassification process from the CIA and is demanding rapid action. But, in an interview, she said she has received little feedback from the Obama administration and seemed resigned to a lengthy timetable.

“I would hope that it would be short and quick,” said Feinstein. “That may be a vain [effort].”

And, others are pointing out that it's silly to argue that the CIA needs a whole lot of time, seeing as it's had this report for a long time:

“I’ll start to get impatient in about two weeks,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats. “The CIA’s had this report for a year now. So they ought to know. It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’re just seeing it for the first time.’”

from the and-so-it-goes dept

Want to know why there are bad patents? Because there's no such thing as a true "final rejection" of a patent (i.e., you can always keep refiling and try, try, trying again and again until it's approved) and because the former head of the Patent Office, David Kappos, saw it as his main challenge to get rid of the giant backlog in getting patents approved. And thus, soon after Kappos took over the USPTO, we noted that patent approval rates started shooting upwards. Over the previous six years or so, the approval rate had been in a gradual decline, with it really starting to drop off around 2004, just as the Supreme Court started hitting back on a bunch of bad patent rulings, and making it clearer that, no, not "everything under the sun" should be patentable. However, Kappos never appeared to view patent quality as important, merely patent quantity and ending the backlog -- and thus, the patent office started to take an approve anything mentality.

Some argued that Kappos had magically made the office "more efficient" and that's why the approval rate started to shoot back up. However, we questioned how you could spend less time reviewing patents without also decreasing the quality of those reviews (and thus the quality of the patents approved). And, indeed, a study released last year made it clear that the approval rate had little to do with improved efficiency, but rather was due to drastically lowered standards.

The same folks who were behind that study have just released some new figures, including 2013, and it shows that the true patent approval rates have continued to go up. Basically, in 2013, the true allowance rate for patent applications was 92% (much higher than the USPTO's officially reported number of 54%). The discrepancy is because the USPTO's number counts "rejections" for patents as if the patent was truly rejected, and doesn't look at how many patents actually make it through the full process. Thus, the fact that patent applicants can keep trying and trying until they get approved is massively hidden by the USPTO's bogus number. This new number is much more accurate, and shows a pretty clear change in how the USPTO viewed patent approvals once President Obama got into office and installed David Kappos in that position (chart via Vox.com):

Of course, as Tim Lee notes in the link above, Kappos is now out at the USPTO (and instead is lobbying for some firms pushing to block meaningful copyright reform, of course). The interim director of the Patent Office is Michelle Lee, who used to work as Google's top patent lawyer -- leading to at least some hope that she might bring some sanity back to the USPTO's willy nilly approval system.

from the welcome-to-the-slow-lane dept

Earlier this week, venture capitalist Brad Feld put up a good post concerning the risk of the FCC's "open internet" rules actually turning into the ability for big broadband providers to set up a "fast lane" for large companies to pay for faster access to users. He suggested was that the best way to make clear how bad an idea this would be, would be to have internet companies demo the slow lane:

What if we did the same by Demoing the Slow Lane for a day. Algorithmically, all sites could slow themselves down dramatically, demonstrating what performance might look like over a 1/1 pipe. Or even a 0.5/0.5 pipe....

Let the world see “Waiting for”, “Connecting”, and “Buffering” show up in their browser continuously throughout the day. Explain what is going on. Then click a button to bypass the Slow Lane and get normal connectivity.

Instead of everyone getting tangled up in the legal question of what “net neutrality” means, consumers can see what could happen if / when ISPs can decide which companies get to use their fast lanes by paying extra and who is relegated to the slow lane.

It appears that (as many, many of you sent in), one web hosting company has adopted a somewhat modified plan based on a similar concept. Neocities has taken the FCC's IP block and rate limited any traffic from the FCC to Neocities' site down to the equivalent of a nostalgic 28.8Kbps modem (old man in me: I remember when those were considered "fast").

Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site, and I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the "keep America's internet slow and expensive forever" lobby.

Neocities will let the FCC use a fast lane for just $1,000 per year. Neocities has also released the code it used, in case anyone else would like to do the same thing.

from the total-failure dept

We sort of expected this to happen after the appeals court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held its oral arguments back in December, but CAFC has now spit at basic common sense and has declared that you can copyright an API. As we noted, back when Judge William Alsup (who learned to code Java to better understand the issues in the case) ruled that APIs were not subject to copyright protection, his ruling was somewhat unique in that it was clearly directed as much at an appeals court panel who would be hearing the appeal as it was at the parties. Alsup rightly suspected that the judges on the appeal wouldn't actually understand the issues as well as he did, and tried to break it down clearly for them. Unfortunately, the three judge CAFC panel did not pay attention. The ruling is so bad that legal scholars are suggesting that it may be as bad as the horrific ruling in the Garcia case.

It's tragic that this case ended up before the CAFC. It shouldn't be there. It should be before the 9th Circuit (who issued the Garcia ruling, so it's not like they're particularly good either...), but because this case started out as a patent lawsuit, even if the patent stuff went away early, the appeals went to CAFC. CAFC is already famous for its maximalist bent on patents, and so it's perhaps not too surprising that it takes a similar view towards copyright. Or, as law professor James Grimmelmann astutely notes: "Is there any body of IP law that the Federal Circuit hasn't done its best/worst to screw up?" The answer, James, may be publicity rights. But, give them a chance and we'll see what it can do there too...

As for the ruling itself... well... it's bad. The court seems to not understand what an API is, confusing it with software functionality. It also appears to misread Judge Alsup's ruling, thinking that he's mistakenly using a fair use analysis to determine whether or not something is copyrightable. But that was not the basis of Judge Alsup's ruling. He very specifically noted that the "command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted." The CAFC panel doesn't seem to understand this at all. In case you're not readily up on your Section 102 knowledge, it covers what is copyrightable subject matter, and (b) is pretty explicit:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Got that? Well, CAFC doesn't seem to get it. At all. They basically seem to think that because the API is "big" it must therefore be copyrightable as a "literary work" even though -- as Alsup rightly pointed out -- it's nothing more than a "system or method of operation" which 102(b) clearly states is uncopyrightable. And yet, CAFC spends many pages arguing how an API is not unlike a "literary work", ignoring its intent and purpose. CAFC argues that the various names that Sun/Oracle used for naming things in the API are subject to copyright because they're "creative." Yet, as Grimmelmann against notes, if that's the case, Brian Kernighan should sue Oracle for its "copying" of his creative choices in "int," "short," "long", "float", "double", and "char."

The original ruling pointed to the ruling in Lotus v. Borland, which found that pull down menus in an app weren't copyrightable. But here, the CAFC rejects this (in part) by saying that a big difference is that the "source code" wasn't copied. But in that case, the menu structure and names were copied -- which is basically the same thing that was copied from the Java API. But the CAFC judges don't even seem to realize that.

It seems fairly clear that the CAFC judges don't understand the difference between an API and software. And thus they make a decision that makes no sense. There is no distinction recognized when it comes to the functionality of an API and how it's entirely different than the purpose of the software itself. This is especially clear towards the end, in which the CAFC ruling misrepresents some discussions on whether certain functionality is best protected by patents or copyright. But the problem is that they misinterpret statements people are making about APIs, thinking that those statements were made about software as a whole. This is just a flat-out fundamental misunderstanding of what an API is, assuming that it's just software. Take the following example:

Many of Google's arguments, and those of some amici, appear premised on the belief that copyright is not the correct legal ground upon which to protect intellectual property rights to software programs; they opine that patent protection for such programs, with its insistence on non-obviousness, and shorter terms of protection, might be more applicable, and sufficient.

But that's not true. No one is arguing that patents are more suitable overall for software. In fact, many in the software field have long argued the exact opposite. What they're saying is that copyright is inappropriate for APIs -- but the CAFC judges don't seem to be able to distinguish between APIs and software. In fact, they're so confused that they throw a bogus parenthetical "software" before "interfaces" in quoting Google:

Google argues that "[a]fter Sega, developers could no longer hope to protect [software] interfaces by copyright . . . Sega signaled that the only reliable means for protecting the functional requirements for achieving interoperability was by patenting them."

Note that "[software]" thrown in before interfaces? Google is talking about whether APIs -- "application programming interfaces" -- are copyrightable. Not whether or not software is copyrightable. And yet the CAFC doesn't even seem to realize this. Ridiculously, CAFC then uses its own misunderstanding and misquote, and points to some of the (many) arguments where people argue that patents are inappropriate for software to dismiss Google's argument about APIs. It honestly doesn't realize that it's comparing two totally different things. What lots of people agree on: software shouldn't be patentable and APIs shouldn't be copyrightable, but software can be copyrightable and API functionality may be patentable. But by confusing APIs and software, CAFC totally misreads both arguments.

This is a disaster all around. Of course, it's not over yet. Google can (and likely will) seek a review of this ruling, either en banc or by petitioning the Supreme Court. And even if that doesn't happen, the CAFC ruling tosses it back down to the district court for an entirely new battle about whether or not -- if the API is covered by copyright -- Google's use was fair use. So, there are still a few more years (and many more millions) to be thrown at this before there's any real conclusion. In the meantime, CAFC has mucked up another form of intellectual property law through a basic (and near total) misunderstanding of technology.

from the that'll-work dept

The Obama administration continues to make incredibly ridiculous decisions in response to the whole Snowden thing. A few weeks ago, we wrote about new rules from James Clapper that banned intelligence community employees from interacting with anyone who was a reporter (or who just had a social media account) without first getting approval. And the latest is that Clapper has
issued a new "instruction" which effectively bars all intelligence community employees (and contractors) from even referring to public news reports about any leaks. It appears that any current or former intelligence community official mentioning any of the reporting about Snowden's leaks without first getting permission may run afoul of these rules.

In the past, we've criticized the government's "head-in-sand" approach to dealing with leaked information. Back in 2010, we pointed out how idiotic it was for the Pentagon to tell all Defense Department employees that they weren't allowed to visit Wikileaks to see the State Department cables that were being littered all over the press. Similarly, after the Snowden revelations, the Defense Department blocked access to the Guardian's webiste, where the original documents were first posted. Similarly, Congressional staffers were told not to look at the Snowden documents -- and if they happened to see one accidentally, they had to call security "for assistance."

The thinking behind this approach is that those documents are technically classified, and if you don't have the proper clearance, you shouldn't have them on a government computer. And, yes, I do understand the complications it causes for government employees who have very strict rules about dealing with classified documents, and how it gets a bit trickier when classified documents are leaked publicly -- but at some point you have to sit back and realize the end result is preposterous and there are better ways to deal with it. In the business world, it's fairly standard for non-disclosure agreements to have a clause that says you're allowed to discuss the information you learned if it becomes public via other means. This is perfectly sensible. The intent is to try to block the initial disclosure. But once it's out there, it makes no sense to bar the discussion of it.

And while (as described above), it's always been the case that government officials were barred from making use of leaked classified documents, this new "instruction" expands things in two ridiculous ways. First, it appears to apply to former intelligence community employees in addition to current ones. And, second, it says they can't even refer to the news coverage of those leaks -- which has long been a way that people could refer to known leaks without referencing the leaked documents directly.

ODNI personnel must not use sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information. The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an unauthorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security. ODNI personnel are not authorized to use anonymous sourcing.

The NY Times quotes a former White House intelligence employee, noting that this restriction is almost certainly a First Amendment violation:

Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University who worked at the intelligence office and the White House from 2006 to 2013, said it was appropriate to block former officials from disclosing classified information and confirming leaks.

But, he said, it went too far to retroactively block former officials from citing news reports in the public domain, as long as they did so neutrally and did not confirm them as factually correct. That would amount to a prior restraint on former officials’ First Amendment rights that they did not consent to, he said.

“You’re basically saying people can’t talk about what everyone in the country is talking about,” he said. “I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech.”

Once again, beyond making a continued mockery of "the most transparent administration in history" claims, these rules just make no sense at all. Yes, Clapper and Obama don't want someone "confirming" what's in a leaked document, but to date there have hardly been many issues with anyone worrying about the legitimacy of leaked documents. Maybe this is part of a new idiotic strategy by Clapper to call into question the validity of future leaked documents from Snowden and from others.

Either way, barring intelligence employees (current and former) from even discussing clearly public information is the epitome of a head-in-sand approach in which denying reality seems like a better strategy than living in reality. I don't know about you, but I want a government that is willing to actually face up to the world we live in, rather than sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "la la la -- I can't hear you." That doesn't seem like a sensible plan by any "intelligence" community.

from the just-not-true dept

For quite some time, intellectual property maximalists have seized upon an incredibly dishonest (though all too frequently successful with policy makers) strategy of conflating a variety of different issues to make it appear that extreme enforcement of copyright and trademark law was all about "protecting the safety of Americans." This was a key point made by SOPA's biggest cheerleaders at the US Chamber of Commerce. They took a very, very, very tiny number of cases where safety was an issue (things like counterfeit drugs) and lumped them into a huge category of infringement (online file sharing) where no safety was at issue -- and despite the issues being entirely unrelated, they would then claim we needed SOPA to protect the safety of Americans.

This particular sleight of hand has been long adopted by the Department of Homeland Security, and in particular its Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, whose former boss, John Mortin, used to regularly interchange and conflate these issues to make all kinds of infringement be considered a massive "safety" threat to the public. And, of course the White House's big "strategic plan" concerning intellectual property enforcement insists that "health and safety" are among its "primary concerns." However, with Homeland Security releasing its latest stats concerning intellectual property "seizures," it's become quite clear that they very rarely have anything to do with health and safety, but much more often are just about protecting the business models of large companies (like the one John Mortin went to work for after leaving ICE).

As Jonathan Band points out in the link above, there doesn't seem to be very much "health and safety" protection behind these efforts.

The DHS report for IP seizures for 2012 contains statistics for seizures of counterfeit goods harmful to safety and security. In 2012, this category contained only 11.5% of counterfeit goods seized, measured by estimated MSRP of the goods. The safety and security category likewise represented just 14.8 % of the number of seizures. In 2011, 17.5% of the counterfeit goods seized fell within the safety and security category, and 17.6% of the number of seizures.

Although the March 24, 2014 press release focuses on health and safety, the actual report for 2013 seizures does not contain a breakdown for the safety and security category, unlike the report for 2012. Using the same methodology as the 2012 report, the safety and security category in 2013 can be estimated to contain less than 10% of the value of good seized, and under 14% of the number of seizures.

In short, for the past three years, counterfeit goods threatening safety and security represent significantly less than 20% of the goods seized, measured either by the value of the goods or the number of seizures. Moreover, the percentage of dangerous counterfeit goods is decreasing.

In fact, Band points out that it seems rather questionable that DHS is insisting that "a great deal more needs to be done to protect the public from the health and safety threats that counterfeiters pose" when it doesn't appear that DHS is actually paying much attention to actual health and safety issues at all.

In 2013, fully 40% of the value of seized goods fell in the handbags/wallets category. Another 30% was in the watches/jewelry category. As noted above, less than 10% of the value related to safety and security. Similarly, 35% of the number of seizures involved wearing apparel/accessories, while under 14% of the number of seizures concerned safety and security goods.

It certainly is possible that some consumers are deceived when they purchase counterfeit handbags, watches, and accessories. But most consumers know exactly what they’re getting when they purchase “luxury” items at a deep discount on Canal Street. In contrast, no consumer intentionally buys fake pharmaceuticals that could kill him. Any dollar spent on intercepting a counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbag or Rolex watch is a dollar not spent protecting U.S. consumers from counterfeit drugs and automotive parts.

There is one other possible interpretation of the small and decreasing share of safety and security seizures: that the threat of counterfeit products dangerous to health and safety has been grossly exaggerated by rights holders and the government to justify DHS’s IP enforcement budget. In other words, protecting public health and safety has largely been a pretext for government spending on protecting the commercial interests of corporate rights holders – many of which are foreign owned.

What? DHS and ICE using claims of "health and safety" as a pretext to protect business interests? How could that possibly be...?

from the he-knows-where-the-holes-he-buried-are dept

It is, of course, no surprise that former NSA boss Keith Alexander is now setting out a shingle for consulting work in the private sector. While we'd assumed he'd latch on with something like the Chertoff Group, it appears that he's setting up his own consulting firm in which he'll help "financial institutions looking to address cybersecurity threats." Considering this is the guy who, just days earlier, was talking about why the NSA harmed internet cybersecurity, it kind of makes you wonder if he's the person you'd really trust with any sort of cybersecurity consulting. Well, unless, as Marcy Wheeler has suggested, his sales pitch is "I know where all the holes I've left in the internet are." Still, if you were a financial institution, would you rather hire someone who's spent their career trying to make the internet safer... or the guy who worked hard to make it less secure?

from the my-uncle-made-$1000000-from-home-using-this-SIMPLE-TRICK! dept

The new get-rich-quick-scheme is this: go to work for the US government.

Or rather, go to "work" for the US government.

Or, screw it... let's not even go to work.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has just released the results of an investigation into employee fraud at the EPA. The environment, which seems to actually be in need of protecting, is being "overseen" by employees that can't even be bothered to show up for work. (via Reason Hit & Run)

[An] EPA manager [...] allowed an employee to stay at home and not report for duty for several years... [T]his EPA manager not only entered fraudulent time-and-attendance records for the absent employee but also approved the same fraudulent records. It is estimated that the manager's approval of fraudulent time-and-attendance records cost the government more than $500,000...

Telecommuting: the wave of the future! Stay at home, do some work, and all without changing out of your pajamas.

This senior executive, who was the absent employee's prior supervisor, remained aware that the employee had been teleworking for more than 20 years with very little substantive work product to show during this time...

Two decades of pajama-wearing non-production, and all this employee has to show for it is a half-million dollars... and a wall full of Employee of the Month awards.

Even more egregious is that this EPA manager authored and approved exemplary performance appraisals that resulted in a cash award for the absent employee.

If telecommuting seems like too much of a hassle, you could just turn the government's national security fervor against itself and do whatever it is you'd rather be doing with your time, all while collecting a paycheck, as in the case of a "Mr. Beale":

The investigation also revealed that [a] senior executive did not exercise due diligence, in part because she believed [...] that Mr. Beale worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. She never questioned Mr. Beale further, she said, because she believed the questioning might compromise national security...

This unwillingness to question issues of purported national security enabled this senior executive to authorize or approve fraudulent time-and-attendance records and travel vouchers in excess of $180,000.

Here's where the War on Terror meets mid-level management. The government's "Insider Threat" program has employees worried that questioning government policies, much less an EPA employee's claims that he's doing important NATSEC work, will see them quickly and forcibly ejected from the corner cubicle and deposited directly into the bowels of the nearest SuperMax.

Mr. Beale's important CIA work apparently involved collecting paychecks and cash "reimbursements" from the EPA for nearly a decade.

Our investigation indicated that the senior executive approved, or authorized the approval of, fraudulent time-and-attendance records and travel vouchers for Mr. Beale from 2000 through 2010...

Mr. Beale (prior to his indictment) racked up a tab approaching $1 million, all collected from US citizens, most of whom actually have to go to work in order to get paid.

There's likely a lot more abuse where that came from, but Deputy Assistant Inspector Allan Williams' summary doesn't detail presumably ongoing investigations. It does, however, ominously note that the above person was "not the only EPA manager who was allowing employees not to report for duty."

Mr. Beale may be headed for jail but the "telecommuter" detailed above, who put in 20 years of service without leaving his home or lifting a finger, walked away clean, as did his fraudulent partners back at the office.

Upon receiving a target letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the senior executive retired and was not prosecuted. Furthermore, the DOJ declined to prosecute either the absent employee or the current supervisor.

The OIG report also details the misconduct related to an employee suffering from a debilitating disease that prevents him from fulfilling his duties. At the time of the investigation, the employee was actually residing in an assisted living facility. The EPA kindly allowed him to telecommute, but like its other long-distance workers, not much actual work was being done.

[E]mployee has not been physically able to complete any work for at least the last year; however, this employee continues to draw a full salary and receive the benefits of an active employee [...] and has been allowed to remain on telework status for several years without providing any substantive work product.

And, finally, if you can be bothered to show up at work, there's nothing obligating you to perform anything more strenuous than some wrist/thumb movement.

[A] career EPA employee [...] allegedly stored pornographic materials on an EPA network server shared by colleagues [...] The OIG's investigation determined that the employee downloaded and viewed more than 7,000 pornographic files during duty hours...

And it's not just what the OIG discovered when it peeked into the server. It's what the employee was actually doing when the OIG stopped by.

When an OIG special agent arrived at this employee's work space to conduct an interview, the special agent witnessed the employee actively viewing pornography on his government-issued computer.

The employee subsequently admitted to spending two to six hours a day viewing and downloading porn. This would seem excessive on a home computer, much less on your employer's computer. This too has been passed along to the DOJ for potential prosecution, but if an employee can spend 20 years notworking for the US government and walk away with nearly a million dollars' worth of compensation without being prosecuted, I would imagine this porn aficionado will be served with little more than a minor slap on his well-used wrist.

The OIG continues to provide the valuable service of showing taxpayers just how badly their money is being abused. Unfortunately, it can't do much more than investigate. It's up to the agencies to fix their problems and many of those investigated seem completely unwilling to do any more than is absolutely unavoidable. The DOJ's scattershot approach to punishing wrongdoers indicates there's at least a 50/50 chance that years of fraud and misconduct will result in nothing harsher than an opportunity to exit gracefully -- and without being named.

from the converted-into-dollars dept

After some amount of hand-wringing, the Federal Election Commission has said that political action committees (PACs) may accept bitcoin donations, though they can't then buy goods and services with those bitcoins. Furthermore, it has to convert the bitcoins to dollars before depositing them into its campaign accounts. In other words, its effectively allowing the use of bitcoin as a payment system, rather than as a currency. However, at the same time, it will allow campaigns to buy bitcoins as an investment vehicle.

There's also some confusion over what this all means. Rather than issuing a full ruling, the FEC released an "advisory opinion" based on a specific request from the Make Your Laws PAC, which specifically asked for the ability to accept bitcoin donations up to $100. What's not clear is if the FEC is just agreeing to that level of donations or if it's okaying larger donations as well. In fact, it appears that the FEC commissioners don't even agree with each other as to whether there's a limit on donation sizes:

That low sum assuaged the concerns of several commissioners about the risks of the virtual currency, said Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic appointee.

"The $100 limit was really important to us," she said. "We have to balance a desire to accommodate innovation, which is a good thing, with a concern that we continue to protect transparency in the system and ensure that foreign money doesn't seep in."

[....] But FEC Chairman Lee Goodman, a Republican appointee to the panel, disagreed. He said that the advisory opinion treats bitcoin donations as in-kind contributions -- not official currency -- meaning that the only limits that apply are the federal caps on all forms of accepted donations. Those limit individuals to giving $2,600 to a candidate per election and $5,000 to a political action committee. Individuals and corporations can give unlimited sums to super PACs.

"To me, the opinion that the commission approved today supports the right of bitcoin users to contribute as they would all other kind things of value," he said, such as silver dollars and works of art.

So that's likely to create some sort of mess somewhere down the road.

In the meantime, it's notable that well-known techie -- and one of the small group of clued-in Congressional Representatives -- Jared Polis also just happened to announce today that you can donate to his campaign via bitcoin. Looking at that page, I note that the highest amount allowed is... $100. It would appear he's taking no chances with the disagreement over amounts allowed by the FEC. Polis claims to be the first Congressional rep to accept bitcoin, though others have pointed out that Rep. Steve Stockman has been accepting bitcoin for his Senate campaign for a few months now.

Either way, it's yet another step forward in making bitcoin somewhat more mainstream.

from the wipo-credibility-gone dept

WIPO boss Francis Gurry's leadership has been full of some really questionable controversies, including potentially violating UN sanctions by sending computers to North Korea and Iran, as well as having people break into the offices of some of his own employees to secretly collect DNA samples. Still, to me, perhaps most troubling was his attempt last month to stifle public debate and commentary about the DNA controversy by sending an intimidating letter to blogger Gene Quinn, threatening him with the possibility of criminal prosecution in Switzerland, for merely publishing a "report of misconduct" filed about Gurry by one of his deputies, James Pooley.

Given all the controversy -- some of it quite serious -- it seems reasonable to question if Gurry is the right person to continue to lead WIPO. Apparently, the member states that control WIPO don't have a problem with it, because they've now reappointed Gurry, giving him a second six-year term.

As for his focus? It appears to be to continue pushing a maximalist position. While it should be noted that WIPO has actually become marginally less maximalist in the past few years, thanks to the influence of developing nations like India and Brazil, it's still an organization that focuses on maximizing intellectual property, rather than maximizing what's actually best for the public. That's clear from Gurry's "acceptance" speech.

Turning to the future, I believe that the fundamental challenge that we face as an Organization is to achieve a shared understanding of the contribution and value of intellectual property to economic, social and cultural development.

Notice that it's not about determining whether or not it's actually true that "intellectual property" creates such value -- it's just assumed as fact.

And, indeed, he also highlighted areas where WIPO has been working on dangerous new forms of "intellectual property" protections -- where absolutely none is needed: broadcast rights and traditional knowledge.

In concrete terms, for example, the Organization must achieve successful outcomes both on broadcasting and on traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. If we are unable to address the latest technological developments, the Organization will fail in its main mission of encouraging innovation and will become irrelevant to the mainstream of global innovation. If we are unable to address traditional knowledge systems, the Organization will fail in its mission of universality and will not recognize the full scope of intellectual contributions to innovation.

This is ridiculous and dangerous. Locking up traditional knowledge doesn't help "recognize the full scope of intellectual contributions to innovation" -- it just makes it more difficult for continued innovation. Protectionism where none has been needed slows down progress, rather than advances it.

As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The problem here is that WIPO seems to view every bit of knowledge, content and transmission as a rogue form of "property" that needs to be locked up and put behind a tollbooth. And rather than looking into how dangerous an assumption that is, Gurry is busy threatening bloggers for reporting about his own questionable behavior.